Is the 1% Really Being Scapegoated?

The 82 year old Tom Perkins of Kleiner Perkins Garfield & Byers, who recently compared progressives to Nazis, has become the focal point of a chorus of voices coming from the uber wealthy 'haves'. In his latest statement, while at an event hosted by Fortune's Adam Lachinsky, he stated that he thinks that those that don't pay any tax shouldn't be allowed to vote. In fact, he thinks that the more in taxes one pays the more votes one should get. What's he really saying? In short, the message has to do with a fear of the masses and populist movements. Even though he, like the other 'haves' in society have everything going for them; wealth, power, position and privilege; what they don't have is a numerical majority. That makes them vulnerable, especially in a representative democracy.

This is not a new issue, but goes back ever since mankind organized into civilizations with structured class structures. By definition, those at the top are dependent on others to help maintain their privileged positions. If the mass majority decide to no longer support the class structure, then the privileged can easily be dethroned. Well known examples of how that fear of the masses is played out can be seen in the Roman practice of 'Games and Bread'. So fearful were the aristocrats of the mob that they pacified and controlled the one million Romans with free bread and massive games and spectacles. It was a massive program that worked well until the corruption of the ruling classes caused a total collapse of the social structure. Justinian in the 5th century C.E. was ready to abdicate from Constantinople because of mass rioting. All throughout history, when income distribution becomes too far out of balance, social upheaval is sure to follow.

The U.S. has been fortunate to not have widespread movements, where the poor have risen up to restructure the status quo. There was a sincere concern by the ruling classes during the 'Great Depression' that all the disenfranchised would rise up and anarchy would ensue. Much of the “New Deal” programs were designed with this in mind and to limit the social unrest. Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger were the voices of the poor and disenfranchised and were seen as quite a threat to the social order. There are a number of schools of thought that support this type of revolution. Even Confucius advocated the poor to rise up when the inequality grows too great. Not since the 'Guilded Age' has the income distribution been so out of balance and as the lower classes become further dissatisfied, the pressure will grow for action. The upper classes are very conscious of calls for class warfare, but are unprepared to take any positive actions to reduce the variables leading to such class warfare. Therefore, we are moving ever closer to the time when the potential for an escalation of tensions will bring forth possible unwanted action.

This is precisely why Perkins is moved to desperate comments. He feels the time is quickening and that social unrest is closer. However, knowing our society, I think it will be some time before the coming of violence. What is more likely to happen, is that pressure will begin to build to reverse the current flow of wealth to fill the coffers of the rich. The only way to avoid the assault on our democratic system is to enact progressive legislation to redistribute the wealth back into the middle and lower classes. It will probably be used to reinforce education and healthcare. However, there will be tremendous political battles before the new order is achieved and there is no guarantee that some of the battles won't erupt into physical violence. Nothing is going to happen over night, but it is obvious that the Progressive Movement will become the dominant force once again.